“They’re so dogmatic, totally rigid in their opinions, and unwilling to consider the other side or that times can change” are hardly uncommon thoughts to have about various groups of people. Whether in an argument between adults about which contemporary children’s cartoon “has the best values” or in politics, we see this theme repeated constantly in the Team Sports-oriented nature of American life.
While I’m not attempting to debunk this statement (it is very often true), it doesn’t account for the lack of flack given to certain leaders and influencers who contradict the ideology they represent, bringing us to the question of why ideology matters until it doesn’t.
"The Right People"
Former U.S. President Barack Obama received a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” Despite this, he spent his two terms in office vastly expanding and normalizing the use of armed drones and increased military operations in several countries. Though some liberals have been willing to criticize him, to most of them, Obama is known for his charisma, eloquence, and ability to connect with people. Many of them still look to him for a sense of hope and inspiration.
This selective perception of ideological contradictions can be more generalized, too; Democrats are known as the more "anti-war" party but are demonstrably more pro-war than even their Republican counterparts (who are now adopting anti-war rhetoric).
In 2019, former President Donald Trump sat down with DPRK leader Kim Jung Un to attempt to establish diplomacy. I agree heavily with this action. However, that doesn’t make Donald Trump anti-war. In fact, during his presidency, Trump escalated troop levels, expanded state reliance on private contractors, and raised the Pentagon budget four years consecutively – among other things. He does not get proper credit for reducing certain military activity from the Obama administration, but to call him “anti-war” is a stretch.
The Democratic Party’s followers often view these wars as justifiable because their leaders say they are (and diplomacy with DPRK as bad because it’s Trump), maintaining their loyalty to the ideology while disregarding inconsistencies.
One of the critical reasons leaders could contradict their ideologies without backlash is the notion of being "the right people."
The slogan "I'm With Her" during Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign nurtured support rather than ideological consistency through this phenomenon. While Clinton often made statements contradicting her party's ideological reputation (again, Clinton is a massive warhawk), her followers remained loyal due to their affinity towards her as “the right kind of person.” They were “with her,” which is completely non-specific. No promises made, no ideas put forward.
This loyalty to “the right people” (or in other cases, “the right things”) creates a sense of belonging and identity that transcends the principles they claim to espouse. As a result, their followers are more likely to overlook or justify any contradictory statements made by these leaders as long as they perceive them as part of their group because they share a personal connection through that identity. They “belong” with these people.
This phenomenon is hardly exclusive to the Democratic Party, too.
Lifestyle Marketing and Fandom
Lifestyle marketing and fandom play a significant role in perpetuating the acceptance of contradictory statements. In a world where human contact is increasingly disassembled, these marketing strategies provide a sense of belonging and identity. By aligning themselves with a particular lifestyle or fandom, individuals feel connected to a larger community with similar values and interests (read: “the quality of curiosity or holding attention”).
I referred to this as the “cultivation of identity” in my 2018 book Custom Reality and You. I’m not talking on an individual level, either; I’m referring to the process by which the ruling class conditions people to use consumption as the primary means of constructing and expressing their identities, facilitated by media and advertising that serve the ruling class’s interests (read: “a stake, share, or involvement in an undertaking”).
Lifestyle and fandom become who we “are,” and everything that attacks what we’ve aligned ourselves with inside this consumer-market equivalent of belief reads as an attack on us. So if I’ve hitched my wagon to Hillary Clinton and someone is pointing out inconsistencies in what she says, I feel as if I have been attacked. I am being called stupid for not noticing something and called evil for supporting someone.
Followers become more susceptible to accepting contradictions from their deference to authority within these communities/fandoms/lifestyles/whatever.
Lifestyle marketing and fandom mechanisms can be observed across various belief systems. The power of these strategies lies in creating a sense of belonging that transcends the specific ideology being promoted. “I am this kind of person, so these are my kind of people – the right people.” The atmosphere comes in varying degrees of “cult”
I used liberals in my examples but could easily use conservatives. Andrew Tate has quite the little cult set up, but truthfully, it’s not as important to be thorough in “who.” I would like more people to be considering “how.”
Conclusion
The phenomenon of overlooking ideological contradictions in leaders and influencers can be attributed to shifting the ideological emphasis from its stated tenants to "the right people." This is accomplished through the ruling class’s cultivation of identity through lifestyle marketing and fandom. This loyalty to individuals or groups creates a sense of belonging and identity that can supersede the principles people claim to uphold.
Supporters are likelier to overlook or justify contradictory statements and actions because they feel a personal connection and affiliation with these leaders or communities. This phenomenon is not exclusive to any particular political party but can be observed across various belief systems. It is important to analyze the mechanisms at play to foster a more critical mindset.
Ideology exists to divert us from the material classification of the relations that define capitalism (“class”). It can be rigid and flexible simultaneously, but it always exists to justify how things are.